New research suggests Rob Ford’s populist appeal could be duplicated across Canada

Bernie would have mopped the floor with him with the ease of stealing candy from an infant's mouth if he was rightfully given the Democrat leadership.

I'm not so sure Sanders would have won. For every "blue collar" voter he took back, he would have lost a suburban upper middle class voter who couldn't stomach Trump personally, but found Clinton unthreatening. And anti-Semitism may have come out of the woodwork. Not to mention that wall street and the corporate media would have pulled out all the stops to defeat him.

Clinton took almost no support in the suburbs-Trump won those areas overwhelmingly.

It's never acceptable, however, to pander to social conservatism(btw, most Canadians now support same-sex marriage and are more open to the other issues you raised such as drug legalization and injection sites than they once were). What would you have had the Left do? Stay the hell away from any support for social progressive ideas until those ideas already had majority support?

Not at all. If the left decided to woo votes by "discouraging" homosexuality (for example) I'd lose my shit.

I just think that political analysis needs to include moral choices as well as fiscal ones. Then there's so much less confusion over the poor voting for tax cuts for the rich.

Quote:

I'm not sure why you brought up same-sex marriage as one of the supposed reasons for failures of the left

It's not a reason for the "failure" of the left, but historically I think it's been a factor in the success of the right. I don't think that's exactly the same thing.

And you might think it's a done deal now, but I suspect many of them don't. The CPC isn't campaigning on it the way Walmart isn't running Christmas ads right now, but when the time is right...

Even here in pretty-good Canada we have people losing their minds over sex-ed in schools. Do you think they're voting Conservative because some economist in the Globe and Mail defends laissez-faire capitalism?

No, but we have the example of Harper who didn't deliver on that score anyway. Every party has die hard supporters who will not be swayed but there are others who can be.

The number one issue that sways swing voters is always the economy. I think it is very rare for voters to think candidates are equally able to manage the economy.

I believe it was Aristotle who said out west there are voters who flip between NDP and Conservative.

People didn't vote for lower taxes for the rich when they voted for Trudeau. They voted for deficits to stimulate the economy through infrastructure projects and child tax benefits. They also voted for change and a fresh face with a positive message.

The NDP needs to defend social democracy and the savings when we act together. I am disappointed the NDP isn't saying anything about the ISDS in TPP and CETA because 85% of Canadians don't want corporations to be able to sue governments. That includes a lot of Conservatives.

While parties have to have a full platform Only 1 issue has top priority, the economy, and there is room for one or two more lead topics but that's the maximum.

The mainstream media isn't that important. They endorsed Harper in 2015. Only people who are into politics pay attention and most of us have already decided. They aren't nothing. It helps to have them on your side. But they do not decide the election.

Sneering at social media is stupid. In doing so Angus showed himself to be a man of the past. That probably contributed to Mulcair's loss too.

Voting for a Ford is in part saying "I may be screwed but so will everyone else be". He can't be any worse.

I have to disagree with Pondering on the influence of the mainstream media. They may not be able to persuade enough people to vote Conservative, but they can demoralize people and thereby encourage them to stay home. In 2015, only 200,000 fewer Canadians voted Conservative, than in 2011, when Harper won a fake "majority". The most significant difference between 2011 and 2015 was the voter turn out.

I have to disagree with Pondering on the influence of the mainstream media. They may not be able to persuade enough people to vote Conservative, but they can demoralize people and thereby encourage them to stay home. In 2015, only 200,000 fewer Canadians voted Conservative, than in 2011, when Harper won a fake "majority". The most significant difference between 2011 and 2015 was the voter turn out.

The mainstream media supported Harper in 2015. How did that discourage voters from turning out when they knew Trudeau had a good chance of winning a minority by the polls?

Around the 10 year mark people often kick a leader out if they haven't delivered enough. People no longer believe the leader/party will address their issues. Harper did nothing about gay marriage or abortion. He wouldn't even allow a debate even though we are the only developed country without any laws on abortion. He allowed foreign workers to come in and take Canadian jobs. He failed to get a pipeline through. They weren't inspired by anyone else so they stayed home. Mainstream media is desperate for attention because they aren't getting much especially when they talk politics.

Looks like Trudeau will get 2 to 3 terms unless something very disruptive happens. I hope Singh is that disruption but I don't know how fast he can get through. I would love to see the NDP be the alternative to the Liberals rather than the Conservatives.

People didn't vote for lower taxes for the rich when they voted for Trudeau.

Of course not, because Trudeau promised and delivered higher taxes for the rich. Now I know you can quibble about that based on what level of income makes you "rich". What you can't quibble about is that Mulcair promised no tax increases for the rich.

People didn't vote for lower taxes for the rich when they voted for Trudeau.

Of course not, because Trudeau promised and delivered higher taxes for the rich. Now I know you can quibble about that based on what level of income makes you "rich". What you can't quibble about is that Mulcair promised no tax increases for the rich.

Good point. I guess I forgot that because I was so against Mulcair by the time the election rolled around. He did promise a small increase in corporate taxes. I think in the end people just found Trudeau more credible than Mulcair so he won the change vote. Now the "change" vote is gone for this election and maybe/probably for 2023. That means it could be 2027 before another party has a chance to depose the Liberals unless there is a massive shift in public thinking.

I still believe that governments, regardless of party in charge, can be forced to comply with the wishes of the people if they feel strongly enough on a topic. Pipelines is an example of that.

And yes, social democracy, like in Scandivania, could use more exposure here. They have the highest standard of living and highest level of happiness there.

Actually, according to the latest UN World Happiness Report, Canada is happier than Sweden. And the USA, with its infamously underdeveloped welfare-system, is happier than Germany, and WAY HAPPIER than France.

voice of the damned, the standard of living + happiness index. The top 3 countries are Scandinavian. Germany is not considered a Scandinavian country and they had a right-wing government for more than a decade.

voice of the damned, the standard of living + happiness index. The top 3 countries are Scandinavian. Germany is not considered a Scandinavian country and they had a right-wing government for more than a decade.

Are you talking about an index that ranks standard-of-living and happiness together? What's the name of that index?

Didn't "Angry Tom" campaign to the right of Trudeau? As I recall Mulcair promised "balanced budgets" ala Harper.

Wasn't it "a la Party policy"?

For interest's sake, didn't the BC NDP just campaign and win with a similar promise?

Problem is, if the NDP sets out to spend like a drunken sailor on shore leave then the common refrain is "they can't be trusted with money; they'd be like sending your five year old grocery shopping".

And if they pledge to only spend the money we've actually got, the common refrain is that they're now "right wing" if they won't put a few billion on the credit card.

And this catch-22 would sort of make sense, if it were coming solely from the right.

Which is why the NDP has to change the conversation and shine a light on the robber barons. Point out the billions of dollars governments have given back to the wealthy through tax cuts to millionaires and corporations and allowing tax havens to flourish. Point out how trade deals could have minimum corporate taxation rules so they can't play us off against one another at least on that score. Point out that companies are shipping jobs out to escape worker protections that came into place because workers were dying and it did not kill manufacturing. Instead of burning women in New York they bury them in collapsed buildings in other countries. Our trade agreements should prevent companies from exporting death not give companies the right to sue us if we interfere in their profit-making.

Which is why the NDP has to change the conversation and shine a light on the robber barons. Point out the billions of dollars governments have given back to the wealthy through tax cuts to millionaires and corporations and allowing tax havens to flourish. Point out how trade deals could have minimum corporate taxation rules so they can't play us off against one another at least on that score. Point out that companies are shipping jobs out to escape worker protections that came into place because workers were dying and it did not kill manufacturing. Instead of burning women in New York they bury them in collapsed buildings in other countries. Our trade agreements should prevent companies from exporting death not give companies the right to sue us if we interfere in their profit-making.

This is everything Donald Trump campaigned on and it resonated with the guys at the gas station.

I think it's the other way around,mate. I don't report anyone (that's not a raging right wing twit)

I never had a reason to report you to anyone. You're the one that keeps bringing it up. I have no idea why you keep asking me to report you to the mods. That's your logic,not mine.

Hey,here's an idea. How about you stop bringing it up,forget about it and move on? Forget about whatever this is about. I have absolutely no idea what it is. Or is it all about calling you terrytowel . I couldn't help that,you're over estimation and love of the Fords is just too similar to that of tt. I'm sorry. Can you accept that? And move on?

It's never acceptable, however, to pander to social conservatism(btw, most Canadians now support same-sex marriage and are more open to the other issues you raised such as drug legalization and injection sites than they once were). What would you have had the Left do? Stay the hell away from any support for social progressive ideas until those ideas already had majority support?

Not at all. If the left decided to woo votes by "discouraging" homosexuality (for example) I'd lose my shit.

I just think that political analysis needs to include moral choices as well as fiscal ones. Then there's so much less confusion over the poor voting for tax cuts for the rich.

Quote:

I'm not sure why you brought up same-sex marriage as one of the supposed reasons for failures of the left

It's not a reason for the "failure" of the left, but historically I think it's been a factor in the success of the right. I don't think that's exactly the same thing.

And you might think it's a done deal now, but I suspect many of them don't. The CPC isn't campaigning on it the way Walmart isn't running Christmas ads right now, but when the time is right...

The way to bring moral choices into it is to call out the immorality of global austerity capitalism, and give up the ridiculous idea that that system can somehow be "reformed". Those running it now are totally uninterested in ever restoring any humanity or any recognition of the value of anything not solely about short-term individual self-interest-they can only be forced, from below, to make concessions as a result of the creation of a mass movement for social and economic justice, and only if that movement is strong enough to pose a real threat to the system's survival.

The way to bring moral choices into it is to call out the immorality of global austerity capitalism, and give up the ridiculous idea that that system can somehow be "reformed". Those running it now are totally uninterested in ever restoring any humanity or any recognition of the value of anything not solely about short-term individual self-interest-they can only be forced, from below, to make concessions as a result of the creation of a mass movement for social and economic justice, and only if that movement is strong enough to pose a real threat to the system's survival.

Ford is the embodiment of his slogans, as useful as they are empty. There is no ideology, only anger—at the Liberal “elites” currently governing Ontario, and the Progressive Conservative “elites” desperate to keep him out of office.

As such, Ford is the receptacle of choice for both rabid anti-Wynne types and the hordes of disaffected Progressive Conservatives who have understandable enmity for their party establishment. Mulroney would keep Wynne’s minimum wage increase. Elliott actually worked for the Wynne government. Doug would promise to burn the whole damned thing down, along with the carbon tax and a safe injection site or three.

Oddly, Ford’s scorched-earth conservatism has a wide potential amongst voters. His populist, vote-the-bastards-out spiel resonates with anyone who wears a hardhat for a living as it does to social conservatives like Charles McVety, long the bearer of Ontario’s bible belt. As well, his relative success in the 2014 Toronto mayoral race (Ford placed second) would suggest he could win as many as 10 seats in the city, where the Progressive Conservatives are decidedly thin.

Ford isn’t nearly the calibre of politician as his brother, Rob, who didn’t practice retail politics as much as consume it, for good and eventually for ill. Yet in declaring his candidacy early, to the tune of Twisted Sister’s “Where Not Going To Take It”, Doug Ford has already proven that he can convert anger into slogans, and slogans into support.

The way to bring moral choices into it is to call out the immorality of global austerity capitalism, and give up the ridiculous idea that that system can somehow be "reformed".

I may not have been clear. I wasn't suggesting that progressives should start making morality any part of what they think is the right thing to do.

I'm only suggesting that if some working class person votes Conservative, rather than just assuming "false consciousness" or "media influence" is why, look to see whether some morality policy could also be why. "The economy is everything" say Pondering and Karl Marx. I'm not sure that's true. I think some people will vote against their economic self-interest if it means voting FOR their moral self-interest.

I'm only suggesting that if some working class person votes Conservative, rather than just assuming "false consciousness" or "media influence" is why, look to see whether some morality policy could also be why. "The economy is everything" say Pondering and Karl Marx. I'm not sure that's true. I think some people will vote against their economic self-interest if it means voting FOR their moral self-interest.

I'm referring specifically to the typical swing voters who determine elections. The anti-abortion and anti gay marriage types usually aren't swing voters. They could be closer to being swing voters now because the Conservative party hasn't been able to turn back the clock on moral issues. They might go Ford to express anger. The Conservative vote is not at all homogenous. The NDP could steal the do-gooders.

The way to bring moral choices into it is to call out the immorality of global austerity capitalism, and give up the ridiculous idea that that system can somehow be "reformed". Those running it now are totally uninterested in ever restoring any humanity or any recognition of the value of anything not solely about short-term individual self-interest-they can only be forced, from below, to make concessions as a result of the creation of a mass movement for social and economic justice, and only if that movement is strong enough to pose a real threat to the system's survival.

Do you mean austerity capitalism or capitalism in general?

Nowadays, all capitalist countries are practicing austerity capitalism-there are none where any of the forces of capital are backing off from their perpetual demands for more cuts in benefits, for more weakening of unions, for more environmental deregulation, for more cuts in funding in education and therefore for higher tuition for university.

It's simply a monolith now...there is no divergence anywhere among countries who privilege "market values".

Norway is social democratic and, as a mixed economy, is the one exception.

Nowadays, all capitalist countries are practicing austerity capitalism-there are none where any of the forces of capital are backing off from their perpetual demands for more cuts in benefits, for more weakening of unions, for more environmental deregulation, for more cuts in funding in education and therefore for higher tuition for university.

Is that really why countries are choosing austerity? Because Microsoft demands higher university tuition?

Maybe I just drank the Kool-aid, but it seemed to me like austerity had more to do with us not having enough money to pay for everything.

People seem to like lower taxes, even when that means getting less. Like buying the much cheaper "chicken weiners" and getting, well, chicken weiners.

Apart from cheerleading populist,man-of-the-people,defender of justice Doug Ford,I wouldn't have mistaken you for somebody else.

Who is cheerleading? All I did was post an article about populist politics for a discussion. I lived under the Ford regime, and it was horrible. I'm just pointing out the support he is attracting, through bumper sticker politics. How is that cheerleading?

Apart from cheerleading populist,man-of-the-people,defender of justice Doug Ford,I wouldn't have mistaken you for somebody else.

Who is cheerleading? All I did was post an article about populist politics for a discussion. I lived under the Ford regime, and it was horrible. I'm just pointing out the support he is attracting, through bumper sticker politics. How is that cheerleading?

You're pushing the idea that Ford will be chosen as leader-which assumes that the Ontario PC's will have forgotten that he and his brother were total disasters when the ran Toronto-in order to push your arrogant notion that the NDP has an obligation to vanish in the name of stopping the guy.

If Ford wasn't here, you'd be finding someone else to push that line with.

And in 2019, you'll be doing the same about the desperate need to "stop Scheer".

And when both of them are gone, you'll dredge up some other "menace" to do the same thing.

It's just about you're insistence that the Liberals are the only non-Conservative party that has any right to exist.

Nowadays, all capitalist countries are practicing austerity capitalism-there are none where any of the forces of capital are backing off from their perpetual demands for more cuts in benefits, for more weakening of unions, for more environmental deregulation, for more cuts in funding in education and therefore for higher tuition for university.

Is that really why countries are choosing austerity? Because Microsoft demands higher university tuition?

Maybe I just drank the Kool-aid, but it seemed to me like austerity had more to do with us not having enough money to pay for everything.

People seem to like lower taxes, even when that means getting less. Like buying the much cheaper "chicken weiners" and getting, well, chicken weiners.

People did not vote for the massive corporate tax cuts or astronomical CEO salaries nor for tax havens. Canada has lost billions over the past few decades.

The people aren't choosing austerity their governments are. Germany is imposing it. The IMF is imposing it. Here in Canada even the NDP focused on balanced budgets in 2015. Neoliberal propaganda has convinced people this is the way it has to be.

People did not vote for the massive corporate tax cuts or astronomical CEO salaries nor for tax havens. Canada has lost billions over the past few decades.

I'm pretty sure only one of those three is actually the purview of the government.

Quote:

Germany is imposing it. The IMF is imposing it. Here in Canada even the NDP focused on balanced budgets in 2015.

Oh wow. So only spending money you actually have == austerity? Is that how it works?

If I earn $1000 and spend $1000, that's austerity?

Quote:

Neoliberal propaganda has convinced people this is the way it has to be.

What propaganda convinced you that not spending money you don't have == austerity?

The economy is manmade. We could be borrowing money at zero interest as we used to. Not spending money on your education when it would increase your income more than the expense, or not buying or maintaining property is false economy. I don't get all the details but from what I have read the debt to GDP ratio in Canada is excellent and we can afford to borrow.

CEO salaries could be tied to company performance so the ones that destroy companies don't make the most money.

We can certainly go after Canadians that have money in tax havens which we haven't been doing.

Pharmacare would garner us huge savings. So would nationalizing communication systems as necessary public infrastructure.

There is no lack of wealth in Canada.

Can you give me an example in which austerity has restored a country's economy?

Capitalism is an economic system in use in most countries which describe themselves as "communist", "socialist", "social democratic", "liberal democratic", "Christian Democratic", "free enterprise", "monarchist", "nationalist", etc.

Austerity is a political ideology, not an economic system. Capitalists themselves are often not the most right-wing people in the universe, although some of them (like the Koch brothers for example) certainly are. Many capitalists will take a Keynsian approach to economics, as spreading money around would be good for their own business.

Austerity is often popular because people do not want to see others get benefits from "their" tax dollars. In the United States for example, public healthcare is widely opposed because if they brought it in, it would mean that Black people would get it. In the UK, the upper classes want to stay that way, and austerity is a good way to keep the "great unwashed" in their place. In Canada, there are large masses of proudly uneducated people who will do whatever Sun Media tells them to do.

People have to suffer, or they would have nothing to complain about. They want to elect a government which will hurt them and their families, so they can always have a reason to cry.

"Collective massochism" is a better description for austerity than "capitalism". Which may explain why it is so popular in the English-speaking world.

I agree. When I hear the words 'deficit' or 'balancing the budget',I roll my eyes because it's te same old story .

The first and deepest cuts are always our social safety net,health care and education. They'll say they have to because the 'government is broke' Bullshit and anyone with their eyes open know it.

They could make cuts to a lot of things that are old and that don't serve the public . Cutting Parliament salaries,pensions like most everyone else has to because the other thing that has been destroyed by austerity policies are unions. No wonder pensions are disappearing and benefits are decimated.

So it's not about budgets and deficits. Those are coded word for, I'm a prick and I don't want to spend YOUR money on YOUR best interests. Especially the working poor and the downtrodden. The only welfare I believe in is for corporations,banks and the rich.

The government always LIES when they say they don't have the money to invest in social services.

When they say that they are being dicks. And it's even worse in the states. I thank buddha that I don't live in that freakshow.

So yeah. Cuts to social services to 'balance the budget' or pay off the 'deficit' is just the government being pricks to the majority of us that is working poor,the poor in general and people with middle incomes. WE always get the shaft.

This is the reason I despise right wing political parties. I spit in their faces. They are just huge pricks that ideologically like to attack the poor.They cum buckets doing so. And always under the guise of budgets and the deficit or debt. They are full of shit. They are all lacking in any kind of compassion and empathy,it's not part of their DNA. They will never change.

If the government really wanted to 'balnce the budget' or 'tackle the debt' it's simple. No more corporate welfare,cut military spending (get the fuck out of the Middle East) and make it a felony for MP's and Senators to defraud the govenment. Like Duffy and Wallin. abolish the Senate,hand them a very modest severance cheque and cut their pensions by 75%. And most importantly...TAX THE RICH.

The way to bring moral choices into it is to call out the immorality of global austerity capitalism, and give up the ridiculous idea that that system can somehow be "reformed". Those running it now are totally uninterested in ever restoring any humanity or any recognition of the value of anything not solely about short-term individual self-interest-they can only be forced, from below, to make concessions as a result of the creation of a mass movement for social and economic justice, and only if that movement is strong enough to pose a real threat to the system's survival.

Do you mean austerity capitalism or capitalism in general?

Nowadays, all capitalist countries are practicing austerity capitalism-there are none where any of the forces of capital are backing off from their perpetual demands for more cuts in benefits, for more weakening of unions, for more environmental deregulation, for more cuts in funding in education and therefore for higher tuition for university.

It's simply a monolith now...there is no divergence anywhere among countries who privilege "market values".

Norway is social democratic and, as a mixed economy, is the one exception.

Also Portugal, to an extent. But any country in the "golden straightjacket" of the EU cannot be fully considered free of austerityism. If there's such a word.

Mr. Magoo keeps comparing national budgets to household ones. This is a favourite right-wing trope. No matter how many times it's proven to be fallacious, it won't die. It's seductive for the same just-world-fallacy reasons that lead the right to oppose welfare programs. It implies that the world can be neatly divided into Goofus and Gallant nations, the Grasshoppers and Ants who either saved food for the winter or frivolously forgot to.

Households, of course, don't set their own salaries. They don't print their own money (or give their refrigerators the authority to print money). They don't have debt issued as IOUs to themselves. They can't pull out of a depression by using deficit spending to go to war with the house next door, then get rewarded with a massive bailout. The only thing a household budget has in common with a nation's budget is that both are denominated in currency.